2009/3/8 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/7 Brian :
>> Ultimately it does not seem reasonable to force the printing of a URL
>> on non-hypertext mediums.
>
> I still believe we ought to avoid explicit distinction between media
> forms because I think these distinctions are inherently fragile.
CC-BY-SA-3.0
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/7 Brian :
>
>> Ultimately it does not seem reasonable to force the printing of a URL
>> on non-hypertext mediums.
>>
> I still believe we ought to avoid explicit distinction between media
> forms because I think these distinctions are inherently fragile.
More im
Erik Moeller wrote:
> My preliminary conclusion is that a simple, manageable attribution
> model, while causing some short-term disruption, will widely be
> considered not only acceptable, but preferable to complex attribution
> models, in support of our mission to disseminate free information.
> T
I'm not sure if I would like to credit "Wikipedia" anyhow, Wikipedia is
not the author even if tradition says you can give attribution to an
encyclopedia in some countries. I think GFDL is better on this, even if
the current practice on Wikipedia is crappy on attribution. The main
authors of an art
2009/3/8 Anthony :
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Crediting "Wikipedia" would never be acceptable under CC-by-SA, since
>> existing contributions weren't made under a terms of service that
>> required permission be granted for such attribution.
>
>
> True, but would th
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Crediting "Wikipedia" would never be acceptable under CC-by-SA, since
> existing contributions weren't made under a terms of service that
> required permission be granted for such attribution.
True, but would the Creative Commons lawyers ag
2009/3/8 John at Darkstar :
> One person told me that attribution of a single article and a bigger
> collection could be made different. That is, a single printed copy of an
> article could use a credit of "Wikipedia" and a mirror on a website
> could use a history link. We don't have to choose a "
One person told me that attribution of a single article and a bigger
collection could be made different. That is, a single printed copy of an
article could use a credit of "Wikipedia" and a mirror on a website
could use a history link. We don't have to choose a "one scheme fits
all" -solution.
joh
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Milos Rancic :
> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> >> For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
> >> desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
> >> could have a
Some options may be out of the question due to local law.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton :
>> I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually
>> available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in
>> keeping with the license, so knowing who would ac
2009/3/8 Milos Rancic :
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
>> desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
>> could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to
>> accomm
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
> > desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
> > could have an informed conversation about
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
> desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
> could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to
> accommodate that model after all. As
Just to be clear, my argument does not allow for 6. Just because an
alternate compromise is possible does not imply that my argument
allows for such a compromise. As another person said, its effectively
just the first.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:13 P
2009/3/7 Brian :
> Ultimately it does not seem reasonable to force the printing of a URL
> on non-hypertext mediums.
I still believe we ought to avoid explicit distinction between media
forms because I think these distinctions are inherently fragile. When
you take the printed book and read it on t
2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton :
> I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually
> available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in
> keeping with the license, so knowing who would accept them isn't
> particularly useful (although I'm not sure it hurts).
We tried to surf
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brian wrote:
> 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 at the re-user's option seems like a good compromise.
Compromise? Between what two sides would that be a compromise?
Might as well make it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 at the re-user's option. Now
there's a compromise, eh? LOL.
Oh oh, he
This is exactly the same as 1.
The reuser always has the option of providing more information, upto
and including the text of every version in the history.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthon
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers, though.
>
>
> Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki data):
>
> 1) Link to the article must be given.
> 2) Collective credit
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> 1 beats 4: 69%
> 4 beats 1: 21%
> 1 not ranked: 0.9%
> 4 not ranked: 4.4%
> neither ranked: 4.4%
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
Pretty much the same for German. Between 70 and 80 percent, right at that
gray area if this were an RfA. This should be fun
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> >
>> >> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers,
>>
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> >
>> >> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers,
>>
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> >> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers,
> though.
> >
> >
> > Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki d
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers, though.
>
>
> Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki data):
>
> 1) Link to the article must be given.
> 2) Collective credit
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers, though.
Condorcet Ranking (for the enwiki data):
1) Link to the article must be given.
2) Collective credit (e.g. Wikipedia community).
3) Link to the version history must be
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
> A condorcet winner could probably be determined from the raw numbers,
> though.
I should add that the choices are mostly not mutually exclusive. If someone
felt strongly that an article should contain *both* a link to the article
*and* a list of
Which[6] is interesting. Almost all responses were "no credit is needed"
(453) or "full list of authors must always be copied" (322). 155 did not
fill out Which[6] - presumably choices were left unranked when they were
less acceptable than all the ranked choices, but this might be assuming too
mu
Baseline, maybe?
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2009 10:18:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps
2009/3/7 Erik Moeller :
> The author attribution survey is now clo
2009/3/7 Erik Moeller :
> The author attribution survey is now closed. We have 1017 complete
> responses. I've posted results of the attribution data in the
> following report:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attribution_Survey_Results.pdf
>
> I've posted the raw data of the attributi
The author attribution survey is now closed. We have 1017 complete
responses. I've posted results of the attribution data in the
following report:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Attribution_Survey_Results.pdf
I've posted the raw data of the attribution survey here:
Respondents from En
30 matches
Mail list logo
